kimmy Posted September 29, 2013 Author Report Posted September 29, 2013 I don't see anyone here arguing that religious people's views shouldn't be criticized. I think that was exactly what the dude who demanded moderator action to stop "anti-Christian bigotry" was arguing. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
The_Squid Posted September 29, 2013 Report Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) How is "conservatives are less intelligent" criticizing their views?Who are you quoting when you quote this statement?And please answer my question above about AC's statement that you claim he said, but don't seem to want to back that up. It's difficult to debate with someone when they misquote people on a regular basis. It borders on dishonest. Edited September 29, 2013 by The_Squid Quote
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 According to Wikipedia, 24% of Canadians claim no religious affiliation. And that doesn't automatically determine that all of those people are atheists. So by your reckoning, we can trust the 75%^ more than we can trust the rest? Yes, I think that, in Canada, on average, religious people are slightly more virtuous than non-religious people. (there are of course still many atheists that are more virtuous religious people) A better way would be to find stats on, for a start, criminals. Do you think there's a higher percentage of atheists among criminals...or a higher percentage of people who consider themselves affiliated with religion somehow, and who are criminals? I am very interested in stats on criminals and religion but have not come accross any useful ones. About ten percent of Canadian adults are criminals: http://www.thestar.com/sponsored_sections/2008/07/21/the_criminals_among_us.html IMO, this would be a lower number for "religious" Canadians, even after controlling for age, gender and income. What do you think, if you walked into a place of worship with 100 adults that reflected the age/sex/income distribution of Canada would there be 10 criminals in there? Quote
GostHacked Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 What do you think, if you walked into a place of worship with 100 adults that reflected the age/sex/income distribution of Canada would there be 10 criminals in there? You including clergy in that number? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, I think that, in Canada, on average, religious people are slightly more virtuous than non-religious people. (there are of course still many atheists that are more virtuous religious people) You're pulling this theory out of your butt. What evidence whatsoever do you base this on? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
kimmy Posted September 30, 2013 Author Report Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, I think that, in Canada, on average, religious people are slightly more virtuous than non-religious people. (there are of course still many atheists that are more virtuous religious people) I am very interested in stats on criminals and religion but have not come accross any useful ones. About ten percent of Canadian adults are criminals: http://www.thestar.com/sponsored_sections/2008/07/21/the_criminals_among_us.html IMO, this would be a lower number for "religious" Canadians, even after controlling for age, gender and income. What do you think, if you walked into a place of worship with 100 adults that reflected the age/sex/income distribution of Canada would there be 10 criminals in there? That might be your opinion, but I doubt it's correct. If we look at our friends south of the border, we find that the non-religious are under-represented in prisons while the religious are over-represented in prisons. Surveys find that religious people have as much premarital sex as non-religious people. The Bible Belt states lead the nation in teenage pregnancy rates. Religious people get divorced as much as non-religious people. It might "just make sense" that religion would cause people to be better people, but I'm not aware of any evidence to show that it actually happens. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Bonam Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 It might "just make sense" that religion would cause people to be better people, but I'm not aware of any evidence to show that it actually happens. -k I don't think it does make sense. Atheism is strongly correlated with both educational achievement and raw intelligence (IQ), both of which are very strongly inversely correlated with criminality. Hence, one would also expect an inverse correlation between atheism and criminality. I very much disagree with carepov's assumption that religious people are on average somewhat more "virtuous" (whatever that means) than non-religious people. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) I would think that people either know right from wrong or they don't - whether they believe in a god or not. Sometimes criminals "find God" and go on to live a 'better' life; perhaps that's what carepov is referring to; because otherwise it just doesn't make any more sense than the idea that people who believe in a god are less intelligent. Edited September 30, 2013 by American Woman Quote
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 You including clergy in that number? Yes. Clergy, hockey coaches, boy scout leaders, wierd uncles, everyone... Quote
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 That might be your opinion, but I doubt it's correct. If we look at our friends south of the border, we find that the non-religious are under-represented in prisons while the religious are over-represented in prisons. Surveys find that religious people have as much premarital sex as non-religious people. The Bible Belt states lead the nation in teenage pregnancy rates. Religious people get divorced as much as non-religious people. It might "just make sense" that religion would cause people to be better people, but I'm not aware of any evidence to show that it actually happens. -k You're pulling this theory out of your butt. What evidence whatsoever do you base this on? This is my opinion. I have no evidence to support it but I am open to changing my opinion if I see evidence suggesting otherwise. I would be interested in the study that shows that "non-religious are under-represented in prisons". What are the typical criminals in Canada and the US like? Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time imagining them attending religious services. Quote
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 I would pick a Buddhist temple over a Catholic Church. But the questions are dumb hypotheticals. Yes, I would prefer to lose my wallet where there is a slightly better chance of honest folks hanging around it. This includes places like yoga studios... Government buildings... And strip clubs... So what? Why do you think you are Buddhists are more honest than Catholics? Strip clubs, seriously? Perhaps my hypotheticals are dumb, but thankfully the bar for intelligent discussion seems to be set pretty low... Anyways, I find it interesting to explore the way we judge people this way. It makes me uncomfortable because I am against racism/sexism/discrimination etc... IMO however these hypotheticals do not demonstrate discrimination because in real life we are able to use better judgement. For example, hypothetically let's say you want to but together a basketball team from a list of names knowing only the race of each person. Would it be racist to choose only black people? No, in real life you would have a tryout and select the best players. Quote
dre Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 Why do you think you are Buddhists are more honest than Catholics? Strip clubs, seriously? Perhaps my hypotheticals are dumb, but thankfully the bar for intelligent discussion seems to be set pretty low... Anyways, I find it interesting to explore the way we judge people this way. It makes me uncomfortable because I am against racism/sexism/discrimination etc... IMO however these hypotheticals do not demonstrate discrimination because in real life we are able to use better judgement. For example, hypothetically let's say you want to but together a basketball team from a list of names knowing only the race of each person. Would it be racist to choose only black people? No, in real life you would have a tryout and select the best players. I dont think your hypotheticals are dumb really, but I think they represent the natural tendency to trust like minded people. Its normal for you to feel that way. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 I don't think it does make sense. Atheism is strongly correlated with both educational achievement and raw intelligence (IQ), both of which are very strongly inversely correlated with criminality. Hence, one would also expect an inverse correlation between atheism and criminality. I very much disagree with carepov's assumption that religious people are on average somewhat more "virtuous" (whatever that means) than non-religious people. I could take either side of this debate. I liked both of these articles: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201103/do-we-need-religion-be-ethical http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion Yes, "atheists" are likely to be more educated than "non-atheists". One reason: Many uneducated people problably don't even know what the word atheistm means. Perhaps my opinion is more like this: 1. Atheists/agnostics are on average the most virtuous people in the West 2. Religious people (those that attend at least one religious function per month) are next 3. Others are, on average, less "virtuous". This would include people that check off a specific religion on a census but do not really practice any religion. What do you think? Quote
carepov Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 I dont think your hypotheticals are dumb really, but I think they represent the natural tendency to trust like minded people. Its normal for you to feel that way. Well, anyone like-minded to me is the last person that I would trust! Quote
guyser Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) First there was this, AW.-I have no such need for it to be anything other than what it is: a belief that there is no god Followed by this in the same postThey believe because they believe the evidence So the abscence of evidence is the evidence one needs to be atheist? Edited September 30, 2013 by Guyser2 Quote
Mighty AC Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, "atheists" are likely to be more educated than "non-atheists". One reason: Many uneducated people problably don't even know what the word atheistm means. Perhaps my opinion is more like this: 1. Atheists/agnostics are on average the most virtuous people in the West 2. Religious people (those that attend at least one religious function per month) are next 3. Others are, on average, less "virtuous". This would include people that check off a specific religion on a census but do not really practice any religion. What do you think? I don't think conclusions about morality can be made based strictly on a person's belief or lack of belief in gods. Corelation != Causation. Atheism is generally a result of more education, a larger world view and increased earnings not the cause. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 What a mess. Why even dignify this nonsense with a response? Agreed. I made a second attempt to clarify just in case AW was honestly confused. However, it's now clear that she is willfully ignoring the facts in order to hold on to a preferred belief about atheism. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Agreed. I made a second attempt to clarify just in case AW was honestly confused. However, it's now clear that she is willfully ignoring the facts in order to hold on to a preferred belief about atheism. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think. Oh, please. The only belief I'm holding onto about atheism is that atheists believe there is no God. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think. More like you can tell a person your opinion, but you can't make them change theirs. Sucks, I know. Some seem to have a real problem with that. Those who don't agree with your take on it are, of course, 'not thinking.' What a crock. Here's the thing. I'm not "confused" in the least. I simply disagree with you. Try dealing with that reality without insulting me. Edited September 30, 2013 by American Woman Quote
The_Squid Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 How can disbelief be belief? It makes no sense. You are making up new definitions to suit your beliefs. Quote
BubberMiley Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 Actually, she said she believes disbelief is belief. Can't argue with that. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Mighty AC Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 Oh, please. The only belief I'm holding onto about atheism is that atheists believe there is no God. What a crock. Here's the thing. I'm not "confused" in the least. I simply disagree with you. Try dealing with that reality without insulting me. Right. You are repeating a logical fallacy despite being shown the error. This isn't an opinion based point, just the misuse of a term. If you are unable to use the correct definition for atheist I am willing to substitute it when conversing with you. What term would you like to use for those that simply reject the unsupported assertion that gods exist? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Guest American Woman Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Right. You are repeating a logical fallacy despite being shown the error. This isn't an opinion based point, just the misuse of a term. If you are unable to use the correct definition for atheist I am willing to substitute it when conversing with you. What term would you like to use for those that simply reject the unsupported assertion that gods exist? An atheist is a person who believes that a god/gods do not exist. If you reject the notion that gods exist, then you believe that they do not. By rejecting the notion that a god/gods exist, you believe that they do not. By refusing to believe that there is a god/gods, atheists believe that there is not a god/gods. So I'll stick with the term atheist, thank you very much. Cambridge Dictionary Online atheist /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ n [C] › someone who believes that God does not exist Edited September 30, 2013 by American Woman Quote
guyser Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) An atheist is a person who believes that a god/gods do not exist. If you reject the notion that gods exist, then you believe that they do not. By rejecting the notion that a god/gods exist, you believe that they do not. By refusing to believe that there is a god/gods, atheists believe that there is not a god/gods. So I'll stick with the term atheist, thank you very much. Cambridge Dictionary Online atheist /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ n [C] › someone who believes that God does not exist Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. //www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist Edited September 30, 2013 by Guyser2 Quote
BubberMiley Posted September 30, 2013 Report Posted September 30, 2013 I can never resist discussing semantics. While my Concise Oxford supports this definition by saying atheism is "the theory or belief that God does not exist", my Oxford Canadian says it is "disbelief in the existence of God or gods." So apparently it can be defined either way, so one must just accept the definition the individual atheist self-identifies with. Trying to insist their disbelief is actually belief would be dishonest and not accepting of both definitions of the word. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.